New at Reason

Julian Sanchez | September 23, 2005

Jacob Sullum finds that everyone's in favor of funding the Katrina recovery in a fiscally responsible way. So long as somebody else is in charge of the "responsible" part.

Comments

|9.23.05 @ 9:30AM|#

Obviously what we need is a missile shield that would protect the U.S. from hurricanes, no matter whether they come from Canada, Mexico or North Korea.

MP|9.23.05 @ 9:32AM|#

Off Topic Thread Jack

A note to Reason...I, and I'm sure most other posters, would be grateful to be notified of the status of the server's ability to handle the load placed on it. I plan on curtailing my contributions until a reasonable level of stability is achieved.

|9.23.05 @ 9:42AM|#

One more bit of fun with the server around 11 a.m. and lasting about an hour. Then we should have a Movable Type reich to last a thousand years.

|9.23.05 @ 9:56AM|#

I love my country. I really do. No sarcasm in that statement. Yet every time I read articles like this, or anything else which reminds me of the true nature of our political class, I begin to look longingly toward Iceland.

|9.23.05 @ 10:00AM|#

I'll believe in the eternally working server when I see it.

|9.23.05 @ 10:13AM|#

Nor does Capito like the idea of delaying the new Medicare prescription drug benefit by a year, which the RSC estimates would save $31 billion. "I worked hard for that," she said. "It took a lot of time and effort to squeeze it through."

Yeah, I mean, try pulling off a huge bank heist twice! It ain't easy! She worked hard for this grandiose act of thievery and fiscal irresponsibility! I mean, imagine the amount of hard work that went into convincing the rest of congress that the biggest welfare entitlement program is history was a good idea! It's hard work convincing people that the government is justified in stealing everyone's money to pay for grampa's stiffie pills. And good god, I don't even want to think about the "hard work" that went into lying & duping Congress by pushing phony numbers and threatening whistleblowers to keep it under wraps. "Hard work", indeed!

[Bush] said reconstruction will "cost whatever it costs."

Spoken like a true spender of other people's money.

"DeLay is no more serious about fiscal responsibility than Shelley Moore Capito. Like her, he cites the jobs created by federal spending as reason enough to support it (especially in his district)�a rationale that would justify paying people to dig holes and fill them in again."

Duh. That statement by DeLay made The Onion look like the AP. No fat? Uh huh. This just in: we've pumped the ocean dry. Yep, nothin' left!

Is there no principle that can stand up against the "it creates jobs!" rationale? Jesus, if tossing defenseless infants into a trash compactor "created jobs", would DeLay vote for it?

drf|9.23.05 @ 10:14AM|#

Julian.

dat soundz gut, mein Leader.

what are our lines in aramic again?

Jmoore: that's a lot better than being UNEMPLOYED IN GREENLAND.

:)

|9.23.05 @ 10:21AM|#

Jmoore: that's a lot better than being UNEMPLOYED IN GREENLAND.

Indigo: "That Jmoore, he can fuss."

Fezik: "Fuss... Fuss... Makes you want to say 'alas.'"

Indigo: "I'm sure that he means no harm."

Fezik: "He's very, very short on... charm!"

Indigo: "You are wonderful with a rhyme."

Fezik: "Yes, yes, some other time."

drf|9.23.05 @ 10:23AM|#

Akira:
OH YEAH!!!! PIGSKIN BUS TO TUNA TOWN!!!!!!

will let you know about the next chicago meeting.

the email i sent to you got booted back. :)

cheers,
drf

|9.23.05 @ 10:25AM|#

Yeah, that address is always a little fugly. I'll mail you a better one.

|9.23.05 @ 10:31AM|#

But I NEED my stiffie pills! How else am I to handle all those hot, young, sweet things? Stingy young whippersnappers!!

|9.23.05 @ 10:42AM|#

Wanted:

A credible theory of how it is politically possible to cut spending. Ever.

What blows my mind is that it doesn't even seem to be politically possible to freeze spending for a year or two, which would help us out quite a bit. I mean, anyone employed during the most recent bubble burst experienced negligible raises for three years or so. People grumbled, but they basically understood what was happening.

joe|9.23.05 @ 10:42AM|#

http://www.ljplus.ru/img/i/s/istopnik/Katrina_hits_New_Orleans.jpg
nice isnt it? =)

|9.23.05 @ 10:44AM|#

The really great thing about all of this federal largesse is that it sets the bar for all future aid. No matter how insignificant the natural disaster, whatever the eventual per-capita expense is in New Orleans will be the new minimum. It's not my fault I built my Crystal Cathedral on a fault line, build me a new one Uncle Sam.

MP|9.23.05 @ 10:47AM|#

Jason,

Here is something I always hump when people ask for a solution to spending problems: The Balanced Budget Veto.

|9.23.05 @ 10:50AM|#

Uh, that wasn't me. As a Kerry man, I don't see ANYTHING in black and white.

|9.23.05 @ 10:53AM|#

How much more big spending will we need before the rest of you realize that divided government has its advantages?

|9.23.05 @ 10:59AM|#

MP:

Wanted: A credible theory as to why any politician would vote for any measure that puts a cap on the amount they 'care'.

MP|9.23.05 @ 11:03AM|#

Graham/Rudman showed the failure of caps. The BBV is a political mechanism, not a cap. The BBV enables shifts of power, and thus it has some likelyhood of being politically palitable.

|9.23.05 @ 11:05AM|#

thoreau

I, for one, have always cheered gridlock.

|9.23.05 @ 11:07AM|#

I also support 364-day annual vacations for all Congressmen. Those people are seriously overworked! They need more time off!

|9.23.05 @ 11:13AM|#

"We have the right as individuals to give away as much of our own money as we please in charity; but as members of Congress we have no right to appropriate a dollar of the public money."

Davy Crockett

|9.23.05 @ 11:19AM|#

thoreau:

I don't think a sustained divided government could sustain spending discipline. If borrowing without end is on the table, the bickering about programs goes away in favor of being able to prove that you are that holiest of political animals, the moderate. Here, 'moderate' means spending a bazillion on defence and another bazillion on education.

|9.23.05 @ 11:44AM|#

I'd just like to remind everyone that, when John Kerry stated that he would return to the "Pay-Go" rules for appropriations, which required offsets for every spending increase, during the presidential debates, George Bush laughed at him and made a joke about Massachusetts Senators spending too much.

Ha ha ha. Get it?

|9.23.05 @ 11:50AM|#

Just as lapsed Repugs and Demos have united (after a fashion) here as Reasonoids, so have Rep and Dem politicians united in DC long, long ago.

|9.23.05 @ 12:10PM|#

proud advocacy of unnecessary, unconstitutional budget busters such as the Medicare drug benefit and the No Child Left Behind Act

(perhaps) stupid question: what is unconstitional about these items?

|9.23.05 @ 12:17PM|#

"ability to buy votes with taxpayers' money."

If only politicians would learn, this rarely works. When has a pork project gotten anyone elected? They may use it during campaigning ("He lobbied (blew someone) hard to get funding for the (useless POS) Centre built downtown.")

Bush didn't get shit for his steel tariffs, and his Medicare entitlement didn't give him the FOPS (Fucking Old Peoples) vote.

In fact, "buying votes" only works in reverse: whomever even thinks about entitlement cuts (which were all public bribes for votes anyways, whether they worked or not), pork slashing, etc. . . the opposition fearmongers the voting public to oppose any change. (AARP).

MP|9.23.05 @ 12:26PM|#

"Pay-Go" rules for appropriations, which required offsets for every spending increase

These offsets can be bond issues. Pay-Go rules are good for managing long-term capital expenditures, but they aren't a useful tool for enforcing fiscal restraint.

|9.23.05 @ 12:38PM|#

"Pay-Go rules are good for managing long-term capital expenditures, but they aren't a useful tool for enforcing fiscal restraint."

Fortunately, we don't have to guess at this. We can actually look at the time period when these rules were in effect, and discover that spending increases were indeed restrained, even during the two years when Democrats controlled both houses and the White House.

|9.23.05 @ 12:39PM|#

Jason Ligon- William Niskanen would disagree with you. Here

|9.23.05 @ 2:41PM|#

Happy:

I've seen that sort of thing, but I think it ignores a couple of points.

1) No one will foresake AARP. They will demand spending without end, and borrowing is the only way to do that. Both parties will borrow to give them what they want. In other words the aging society kills the historical comparisons for budgeting.

2) Once borrowing is on the table as a long term solution to buying off the AARP, the old dynamic of split government fails. Dems are restrained by the political unpopularity of raising taxes. In a divided government, Repubs always look like the good guy on that issue. If the dems don't have to raise taxes, this dynamic doesn't function any more. To believe this won't happen, you have to believe that the Dems are more driven by fiscal discipline than by handing out goodies to constituents. Brad Delong, Matt Y, and joe may be willing to go there, but it just seems implausible to me.

|9.23.05 @ 3:02PM|#

Rhywun,

" what is unconstitional about [Medicare drug benefit and the No Child Left Behind Act]?"

Really? I think even I know that one. Neither one is authorized in the constiution.

|9.23.05 @ 4:36PM|#

I thought I was just kidding with my comment of 9:30 AM on this thread, but then I saw this:

"The federal government's hurricane modification program was called Project Stormfury. The idea was raised during the Eisenhower administration after several major storms hit the East Coast in the mid-1950s, killing 749 people and causing billions in damages."

|9.23.05 @ 5:26PM|#

Really? I think even I know that one. Neither one is authorized in the constiution.

Does the constitution specifically prohibit spending money on stuff not listed there? I would have thought that argument was pretty extreme, even around here.

|9.23.05 @ 5:38PM|#

Oops, I'm not "Big Fun" anymore :-)

MP|9.23.05 @ 5:58PM|#

Rhywun,

Unless you agree with the General Welfare clause interpretation advanced by the SCOTUS decisions that underlie Social Security, then yes, the Constition does prohibit (actually does not authorize) spending of this nature.